But it hasn’t gone full swing with the other end doing the same thing.
Fairly harmless people like Roseanne Barr, James Gunn or the many others large brigades have moved to silence them on Twitter.
All the other end has to do is invoke “fairness” and there will be a “tit-for-tat” situation where many channels are removed.
The fastest way to get a fringe groups to think they are oppressed is to censor them. This leads to more drastic action.
People generally seem to have this idea that freedom of speech also means freedom from consequences.
That you can say and do anything you want and then expect that others are not allowed to do the same, that others are somehow not afforded that same freedom if they are to call you out on your bullshit in response.
Freedom of speech is a double edged blade. And using it to spew bullshit is like robbing a gun shop / military base.
If you speak, expect others to respond back.
And YouTube is not your house, YouTube is google’s house and you’re only invited to the party if you behave.
Alex Jones honestly was no better than most scammers.
Except he pissed off enough of googles other youtube party guests. So the guests and the hosts decided to boot him out.
What’s the moral of the story?
If you dish out shit, expect to get shit in return…
Free speech has consequences, especially if you talk behind someones back and make them look bad for what they did or didn’t do.
Jones is just the first to have gotten loud enough.
Yet there remain countless other scammers and random nonsense channels on youtube, many technically qualify as criminal.
I would not be even remotely surprised to see youtube crack down on those too.
For Years YouTube has done nothing, and we’ve become used to that. But that days are coming to an end.
Youtube is not the peoples platform, It’s googles(alphabets) baby.
We’ve got to get away from our attachment to it, and build our own platforms if.
Yeah but wait until people on the other side of view points take the same idea to other channels. This will lead to less view points and content.
It also isn’t that same when YouTube is a virtual monopoly on video hosting. The house analogy doesn’t hold up when there is only one house.
The better solution is to let debate happen rather than silence.
Its like steering a cruise ship. In 10 years we will see what has happened and course correcting will take just as long again.
Politics runs in tiny cycles and changing the world happens on lifetimes. Country’s flip flopping do nothing. Countries building infrastructure over lifetimes make progress.
Take Australia we made a NATIONAL BROAD BAND NETWORK to roll out…then flip, flopped governments till we are now the ass end of the world unless you got lucky. And in 10 years it will all be shit anyways cause we ditched fiber and used copper to save money 
Government is a joke. I will wing out my time and die while democracy caves to corps.
Debate within your logic and try not being a straight-up dick.
Not critical to the point of the analogy. But if you want to say there’s only one house.
Then take it as if you’re all stuck in the same community housing in a country which people voluntarily flocked to. The same point still stands, everyone on YouTube is still living under Alphabet rules, rules which you have to legally agree to when signing up. This is not a defense of anything, this is just a fact.
As a question: What would you personally or as your business do if you created a website and someone like Alex Jones set up shop on your comments/blog section?
The Freedom of speech is not absolute and carries plenty of limitations.
Debate is a very specific formal form of discourse. Arguably a lot of youtube’s content does not qualify as debate.
Under that logic why are these channels allowed to exist?:
I can keep going…
What would you do if Marten Australia did the same thing ?
Boot you off this thread 
Those that claim to be champions of “Fairness” and " Tolerance" are using the most intolerant of views that are not their own.
Isn’t that why we have traitors like Assange and that other one
Cant boot me if Im not in the US but Google is > outside the US than in
Set their content to mature and not have it eligible for advertisement, still wouldn’t ban it.
And you have guys like home skillet here is also allowed to do the same:
Should they remove all UFO video?
You can’t pick and choose if they have a policy so broad that it is wholesale or they are a hypocrite. And do you want to find out when they enforce the policy completely?
Unless they are clearly bashing other people’s debacle in a toxic manner, I have no reason to see them being booted off the platform where everyone can make their opinion but not to the certain point where it’s just the 1st kid deliberately using a foam sword to physically continuously bashing another 2nd kid just because the 1st one doesn’t like him.
Lets take for example antivaxxer content and apply the following:
van Mill, David (1 January 2016). Zalta, Edward N., ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.).
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”[7]
Specifically:
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”[7]
What’s your stance on that?
So Australian Alex Jones is ok or not ?
Outside of the Austrlain government bending over
What a cutey 
What’s his name?
I take the anti-federalist stand point that the government does not give you the right to free speech but you have it by virtue of being a sentient being. It is only spelled out to prevent the removal of said right.
They call him Roo
And yet as per the point I posted there are conditions under which the right to free speech may be conditionally changed.
For example:
^^ Among a variety of other factors
